The Rise and Fall of Barack Obama

It’s been an interesting six months for The One We Have All Been Waiting For. Shortly into his still-hard-to-believe second term, it seems that the disenchantment is growing rapidly due to a continued struggling economy, high unemployment with no real concerted effort to do anything about it, his feckless foreign policy, and of course the scandals, which seemingly grow by the day. A new CNN poll shows just 45% approval, down 8 points from just a few months ago, and fueled by a 17 point drop in those folks 30 years old and younger. It seems as though the younger generations “hope and change” has been met with the reality of progressive policies, which only bring about bigger government and less opportunity. It’s not as though we didn’t have history to look back on, or that they were warned that this would be the eventual result, so it’s hard to be sympathetic.

Yesterday, Mr. Obama spoke to a considerably smaller crowd then the one that met him in 2008, and gave a yawn of a speech. Or as Nile Gardiner from the The Telegraph so aptly put it – “a weak and underwhelming address from a floundering President”. Obama’s speech contained meaningless platitudes that have been uttered so many times, by so many empty leaders that they resonate with no one. Sadly we have three and half more years of listening to his empty speeches and living with his harmful policies, but have no fear, the white guilt that drove the Democrats to nominate Obama in 2008, has now morphed into gender guilt, as the Democrats and the progressive media are quickly falling in line behind Hillary in hopes of keeping their oligarchy alive. It’s actually kind of a slap in the face to Democrats around the country isn’t it? No one within that party stands a chance at the nomination if Hillary decides to run. She has been pre ordained because of her gender, her lineage, and the fact that she was tossed aside in 2008 in favor of someone who represented a more appealing minority.

The Democratic Party has devolved into a paranoid oligarchial cult followed by a sycophantic media and a mindless constituency afraid to death of right wing strawmen. It’s actually comical when you think about it. But what’s not funny is their authoritarian tactics, particularly the monitoring of Sheryl Attkinson’s personal and professional computers, the domestic monitoring of emails and phone calls, and the level of scrutiny directed towards conservative political groups. Fasten your seat belt folks, it’s going to be a bumpy few years.

About these ads

59 thoughts on “The Rise and Fall of Barack Obama

  1. neocon01

    The Rise and Fall of Barack Obama

    He hasnt fallen yet, he isnt sharing a cell with OJ and holder, I am anxiously waiting for that day though.

  2. Retired Spook

    There’s no longer any doubt that the one bright spot of the Obama presidency the Left likes to tout, the stock market, was recently reaching new highs, not because of economic prosperity, but because of the Fed’s free money policy. Just the mention of a possible tapering off of the free money spigot has sent the markets into a tail spin. Now there are NO bright spots from the 2nd rate community agitator’s reign of terror. Too bad — so sad.

    1. Cluster Post author

      Down over 350 points today! Ouch. And as you said, just at the mention that the presses might slow down. Expect inflation and rising interest rates to follow.

      1. Retired Spook

        Expect inflation and rising interest rates to follow.

        It took a 22% prime back in the early 80’s to wash out an excess of liquidity that was a drop in the bucket compared to what we’re looking at now.

    2. dbschmidt

      Spook, et.al.,
      “the one bright spot of the Obama presidency the Left likes to tout, the stock market, was recently reaching new highs, “

      is mostly correct (as Count taught me, plus I owe him another friggin’ beer for another major mistake on my part) but it does show what happens when one takes the Chicago road show into the Big Time. Squat. Look no further than Hyde Park and/or the Anaheim Challenge unless one really wants to wonder why Bloomberg’s “Mayors against illegal guns” never gets near the real problem. Really hate to break to the mentally challenged piece of crap Bloomberg and other Liberals but everyone is against “illegal” guns.

      Back to the market–I, at least pulled out with the exception of 2 long term stocks but am fearful of getting back in. I was never a day-trader and all of my sales where long-term stocks but after Bernanke and the previous weakness in China–I am out into cash. Then again, I need it because of the “One we have all been waiting for” (to leave office) as we will see what happens as this administration drives the US into a recession / depression we will not recover from.

      [For the resident Liberal pukes]
      I am talking about Jimmy Cater interest rates of 18%. Gas jumped to over a $1 a gallon–but then again I am sure you all are so happy with the “new normal” rather than letting people excel. Rather than a JFK’s “a rising tide lifts all boats” you prefer a “if we sink them all to the bottom then they will all be equally miserable.”

      1. 02casper

        dbschmidt,
        Off topic, but I just wanted to let you know I am taking the Hillsdale courses. Lots to think about.

      2. Retired Spook

        I just wanted to let you know I am taking the Hillsdale courses.

        Casper, as I’ve mentioned before, I want to take them when I retire, which, hopefully, will be soon. Do they do a pretty decent job of linking the provisions in the Constitution with the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings? The reason I ask is that the 2-day Constitution seminar I took a couple years ago was based around that dynamic, and it made it much easier to understand and appreciate the logic behind much of the Constitution. The Founders really were brilliant guys.

      3. dbschmidt

        Casper,
        Great to hear. I really liked the courses and believe they are worth the effort.

        Spook,
        Even though I would like the time to take them all in a concerted effort — they are split into a lot of 40 min lectures which allowed me to do one or more each night that I had time.

      4. 02casper

        Spook,
        I’ve just watched the first couple of lectures by Dr. Arnn. Much to think about.

      5. Retired Spook

        Rather than a JFK’s “a rising tide lifts all boats” you prefer a “if we sink them all to the bottom then they will all be equally miserable.”

        DB, excellent description of Progressivism.

      6. neocon01

        sad to hear that a so called “teacher” has to take courses on the US constitution.

      7. 02casper

        neocon01 June 22, 2013 at 3:19 pm

        “sad to hear that a so called “teacher” has to take courses on the US constitution.”

        I don’t have to take anything. I chose to take a number of courses to expand my knowledge. I’m also taking a couple of history courses for credit and I’m reading and rereading several other books on various subjects.

    1. neocon01

      JR
      they are already endorsing hitlery for barrys successor, another one straight from the steaming pile

      1. Retired Spook

        Neo,

        I’d love to have someone explain the appeal of Hillary Clinton to be President. Other than she’s next in line, I don’t see ANY appeal whatsoever.

      2. Cluster Post author

        Hillary is next in line because of the guilt democrats feel for passing over her last time. In 2008, they were seduced by a more appealing minority figure who brought out the white guilt in them, a guilt that surpassed their feeling for Hillary. However now, buyers remorse has kicked in, and they are back to romancing Hillary again. It’s a bizarre study in social science.

  3. seniorwoman

    When I was growing up(back in the dark ages), I use to sit with my parents at parades waving my little flag and watching veterans and soldiers march, floats with red, white, and blue banners, horses with riders carrying the American flag, and most of all I remember the candy being tossed out into the crowd. I grew up in the Heartland where patriotism was part of our daily life. I wonder what Obama saw when he was growing up.

    I went to a one room school house in the country where we were taught the three “Rs”, and the histories along with geography and science. There was a picture of George Washington and the current President. There was the American flag and every morning we said the Pledge of Allegiance. We went outside and played at recess and I don’t remember a fat kid.
    I wonder what Obama did at his school. What did he pledge? Where did he play?

    So, my question is to the those who post here: If you don’t grow up in the USA, if you don’t experience the patriotism of our fathers, if you don’t see patriotic parades, if you don’t grow up in the USA and “feel” it……………………..then just what did Obama “feel” when he was growing up?

    1. 01canadianobserver

      I realize that this is a conservative blog and if a comment posted here is not in accordance with right wing thought, it will quickly disappear. So be it.

      It wasn’t so much that your comment was not in accordance with accepted thought that the main body of your comment was deleted. It’s that is was a totally unwarranted, nasty personal attack on someone who didn’t deserve it//Moderator

      1. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock)

        I read Canadian’s comment just before it was deleted, and it was an uncalled for attack on seniorwoman who did nothing but describe the patriotic feelings that many of us have for OUR country. Having neither fought nor had any ancestors who fought for his/her freedom, I can’t imagine how Canadian feels qualified to attack someone from another country who has or who has had ancestors who risked their lives for freedom. I suspect that, should Canada ever be thrust into a position where the citizens are forced to fight for freedom or suffer under tyranny, there will be some who will rise to the call. I doubt that Canadian Observer will be one of them.

      2. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock)

        I also read a comment that has been completely deleted that ridiculed those of us who grew up in what he/she referred to as the Norman Rockwell era, as though somehow that was a bad thing. But then that’s the only kind of rhetoric Leftists have to fall back on since they can’t really defend the lifestyles and policies their leaders are shoving down their throats.

      3. Retired Spook

        I also read a comment that has been completely deleted that ridiculed those of us who grew up in what he/she referred to as the Norman Rockwell era,

        J.R., having grown up in the period between the Korean War and the beginning of the Vietnam War, when kids were allowed to be kids; when you could point your finger at your buddy on the playground and say “bang, you’re dead” and not get expelled; when you could ride your bike without a goofy looking helmet; and when you could leave your house unlocked and your car in the driveway with the keys in the ignition. I can understand why someone who has studied that era might be envious of those of us who grew up back then, but I can’t imagine why someone would ridicule people who grew up during that time. That has to be based on just pure ignorance and hate.

      4. Cluster Post author

        There is a white hot hatred that many progressives have towards conservatives and I am not sure where that comes from but it is real. Just look at the vitriol directed towards people like Palin, Cruz, West, etc.. People who are simply patriotic, want to uphold traditions, live by the constitution and try and preserve what is, and what made America great.

        This hatred quite possibly could come from their belief that wanting to uphold the traditions and ideals of American life is tantamount to racism, bigotry and homophobia, a misguided belief of which stems from their years in our liberally dominated educational system.

      5. Retired Spook

        and try and preserve what is, and what made America great.

        Cluster, I would completely understand if Progressive policies were designed to expand American greatness and exceptionalism — to continue to strive to be the best we can be, but that’s not what Progressivism is. Progressives tout change for the sake of change, not for the sake of improvement. That is not a logical way for the human mind to work, so it has to be the result of years of indoctrination via our public education system. High achievement is not something to strive for but something to be shared — like the high school that had 29 valedictorians. I absolutely fail to understand how any American could be embarrassed by the exceptional history of accomplishment of this country.

      6. 01canadianobserver

        The problem with waxing nostalgic about the ‘good old days’ is that while it was just peachy for the majority, it was an entirely different ball of wax if you were of African descent. The thought of regressing back to those times is a frightening thing to contemplate for those of us who imagined that when the President was elected it was a sign that America had thrown off the shackles of the past and had become a nation where no matter what your ethnicity, it had no bearing on what opportunities were open to you.

      7. Cluster Post author

        What’s sad about the 29 valedictorians is why the other 28 were wanting to share in the success of the true valedictorian. But that’s a great analogy of our current society isn’t it? Currently, too many people don’t care if they earned it, but they do expect it – whether it be financial or personal rewards.

        This morning I was watching a little MSNBC, and of course they were claiming that the failure for the Farm Bill to pass will result in taking food away from poor people. There was no objective analysis of the contents of the bill, or any historical review of the escalating cost of the bill. It was simply a conversation on how evil republicans are in voting this down and wanting poor people to go hungry. And that right there sums up the intelligence on the left.

      8. Cluster Post author

        Canadian,

        I want to remind you that it was republicans and conservatives who have fought the most for freedom for everyone, including blacks in this country. If it were left up to people like Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright (Clinton’s mentor), or Sen. Byrd, civil rights might not have come about when it did. Democrats have a checkered past when it comes to civil rights, and that’s a fact you can not spin. It is now those same conservatives who want to give that traditional America to minorities, not the failed America that the left is creating in name of fairness.

      9. Retired Spook

        The problem with waxing nostalgic about the ‘good old days’ is that while it was just peachy for the majority, it was an entirely different ball of wax if you were of African descent. The thought of regressing back to those times is a frightening thing to contemplate for those of us who imagined that when the President was elected it was a sign that America had thrown off the shackles of the past and had become a nation where no matter what your ethnicity, it had no bearing on what opportunities were open to you.

        That is one of the most ignorant statements you’ve ever made here, CO, and that’s saying something. There may be a few Neanderthals who would like to see black relegated to the back of the bus again, but I sure don’t know any of them. And it was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who started the civil rights process, and Democrats who continuously filibustered against it. In the end, even though they were in the minority in Congress, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. And it was Democrat-controlled Congresses throughout the 60’s, 70′ 80’s and early 90’s that developed policies that have destroyed the black family. Would you care to take a stab at defending that? No — didn’t think so.

        There was also hope among many Conservatives, myself included, even though we didn’t vote for him, that Obama would be the first post-racial President. Instead he has done more to inflame the fires of racism than any President since Wilson (also a Democrat). Instead, Obama may well go down in history as the first post-American President.

        I’ll tell you, CO, your ignorance of America is getting really tiresome.

      10. Amazona

        CO, remember in another series of posts, just a day or so ago, when I said you were “bright”?

        I’d like to take that back.

        This latest cliched Lefty whine about the “bad old days” you people need to invent, in a desperate (and increasingly futile) effort to make the current time seem good by comparison, is proof of a lack of what one might call “brightness”—though it does mark you as quite the compliant little Lefty mouthpiece.

        Sure, there were areas in the United States where racism was common. And there were more where it was not. I guess if you want to sit in another country and suck up anti-American crap dished out by Hollyweird and then act as if it is accurate, you get to do that. But please refrain from coming here to dump it on this blog.

        When you do so, you brand yourself as the same kind of intellectual lightweight who might expound on how all Canadians wear red plaid ear-flap hats and sit around Tim Horton’s eating donuts and talking about hockey and calling each other hosers.

        In the era mentioned, millions of black babies were not being ritually killed every year by white “doctors. In the era mentioned, the black family was strong, and so was the culture of religion—-and not the hideously distorted view of Christianity favored by today’s black elites, in which Christ was a black man murdered by white Europeans because of his race, thereby justifying and validating black hatred of whites. In the era mentioned, education was valued, and young black men did not become predators, killing other young black men by the thousands.

        It was not a perfect time. None is. But it was so far from the bizarre, twisted, hateful time you have chosen to believe in, your version is simply not recognizable as mainstream America.

        You bleat the same old silly nonsense the Left dishes out in troughs for people like you to slurp up——such as the vomit-making platitude “…that when the President was elected it was a sign that America had thrown off the shackles of the past and had become a nation where no matter what your ethnicity, it had no bearing on what opportunities were open to you.”

        When this president was elected, it was a sign that racism had become the most effective way to gain power, by dividing people and turning them against each other. It was proof that we had ignored the principles of decency that formed the foundation of this country, in favor of becoming a land where ethnicity is everything, where people ARE judged on the color of their skin, and where “opportunity” is defined as what a brutal political machine can do for you.

        The election of Barack Obama was not a step backward, it was a lurch backward, into nationally institutionalized racism and the blatant incorporation of racism into the very fabric of this nation. It is no longer relegated to backwaters—it is up front, and part of the identity of the country.

        No one but someone like you could find the United States of overt blatant institutionalized racism, slaughter of tens of millions of innocent babies every year, the destruction of the black family, the creation of a black culture in which violence and predation on other black people are the most defining characteristics, the institutionalized perception that black people are so inherently inferior they simply cannot be expected to compete with other races without handicapping the competition, the institutionalized decision that black people should not be held to the same standards as other races when it comes to the law, or education, or accomplishment and so on, to be preferable to a time in which people were seen as people and not as political demographics to be manipulated in the quest for power.

        You are not just ridiculous, you are nasty.

      11. 01canadianobserver

        Retired Spook
        June 22, 2013 at 10:25 am
        ——————————————————————————–
        Spook, I appreciate the fact that there are conservatives who applaud the fact that the country had arrived at the point where the election of a person of colour was no longer taboo. However, it appears that not all of your comrades are of the same mind. Why do you think the fires of racism have been inflamed during this administration? What would the reason be?

      12. Cluster Post author

        Canadian,

        The flames of racism have been fanned the most by democrats, progressives and Barack Obama himself. When tea partners, or anyone, objected to the policies of Obama, it was because they were racist according to democrats, when in fact that was not the case. When a black Harvard professor was detained by white policeman, Obama jumped to conclusion and said that the police had acted stupidly. Obama’s DOJ department refuses to prosecute black on white crime and has given the black panthers a free pass. Obama claimed that Trayvon Martin could have been his son. Obama told a Hispanic caucus to “punish their enemies”, and so on and so on. Not too mention the democrats nomination of the most inexperienced chief executive in our nations history primarily because of his skin color. The examples are endless.

      13. Amazona

        “Why do you think the fires of racism have been inflamed during this administration? What would the reason be?”

        Are you SERIOUS ????

        You have got to be kidding.

        Did you choke when you tried to write these “questions”?

        For a self-described “Observer” you have just admitted that you have “observed” nothing.

        Blatant, divisive, callously invented and used, racism has been the very foundation of the Left’s march toward power. It has been so used, and so overused, it has gone nearly full circle and become a joke.

        When a poster here was writing tongue-in-cheek slogans for the much-beloved-by-the-Left Chevy Volt, one of his suggestions was:
        “Chevy Volt—-because if you want to go more than 40 miles you are a racist.”

        And the thing is, this made perfect sense, in a nation where its own Attorney General refused to even acknowledge a bounty put on the head of a white man who had killed a black man in self defense, because the group offering to pay people for murder is black.

        Please do not even bother to come back here with any more of this mindless, utterly stupid, Leftist rhetoric.

      14. Amazona

        Let me guess—CO’s next plaintive little bleat will be along the lines of how this nation (or at least the Right) is engaged in a “WAR ON WOMEN !!!!” (sobwhimper)

        What a gullible little Lefty foot soldier he is, slurping up the crap and dashing over here to dump it. And he seems rather proud of what he deposits……………

      15. Amazona

        Remember, the only reason anyone objected to a White House spokeswoman repeatedly lying about Benghazi was because she is black.

        And the only reason we objected to having a proven and then admitted liar appointed Secretary of State was —-all together now—-BECAUSE SHE IS BLACK !!!!!

        And so it goes………………

      16. 01canadianobserver

        Amazona
        June 22, 2013 at 11:01 am
        ————————————————————————————

        Have tea party members denounced racial slurs directed at President Obama and his wife, Amazona? Did they speak up when, for example:- a Republican congressman referred to then 47 year old candidate Obama as “boy”, a Republican activist in South Carolina compared Michelle Obama to a gorilla, a staffer for a Republican state senator in Tennessee sent out an image depicting President Obama as a “spook”, a Republican newsletter in California depicted candidate Obama surrounded by fried chicken, watermelon, and food stamps, or emails sent out by Republican councilman, Gary Frago which included a suggestion that, if Sarah Palin poses in Playboy, then Michelle Obama should pose in National Geographic. Another compared President Obama to O.J. Simpson, and still another suggested something called a “n—-r rig” should now be called a “presidential solution.

        Are these just isolated examples of elected officials having a little fun, not meant, in any way, to be racist, or is this the tip of a very ugly iceberg? What say you?

      17. Cluster Post author

        Canadian,

        Allow me to point out the differences. You are referring to isolated and severely stupid comments made from bigoted people, and I can play that game all day with you by referencing comments from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Chris Matthews, etc.

        Progressive racism is systemic, and politically motivated to marginalize opposition, and to keep the races divided. Black unemployment and racial discord is at an all time high, and that really is by design.

      18. M. Noonan

        meur,

        Still peddling the “Southern Strategy” lie – look, if the racists of the Democrat party switched over to the GOP because of the Civil Rights Act, then why was Byrd a Democrat to his dying day? He was the Kleagle of the KKK – the quintessential racist, white Southern Democrat which your side says the “Southern Strategy” coaxed in to the GOP.

        Stop believing the bullsh** nonsense you read on liberal websites – its all lies from start to finish. Starting thinking about things.

        Thanks for keeping the troll footprints on the blog. Do you really think facts matter to this guy? But you must answer because he drags the bait past you. Yip Yip Yip // Moderator

      19. M. Noonan

        Nice try – but it was liberal southerners who kept up the racism; for goodness sakes, it was liberal Woodrow Wilson who enforced segregation in Washington, DC. It was liberals like Byrd who were racist when racism was popular and who switch to being un-racist when that became the path to elective office.

        If there was a Southern Strategy, then why was it only in the late 1990’s and going forward – more than 30 years after the Civil Rights Act – that the GOP started to win consistently House and State legislative seats in the South? Alabama – probably the most resistant State to the Civil Rights Act – only elected a GOP legislature in 2010!

        The story that Atwater set out to woo racists in to the GOP as a result of the Civil Rights Act is a myth – not least of which is the fact that Atwater was born in 1951 and the Civil Rights Act was passed when he was 14…he would hardly have been in a position to set up a strategy to garner the votes of southern, White racists…who, in all events, continued to vote Democrat at the Congressional and State level until the 1990’s…by which time those who had been active racists in the 1960’s were mostly dead of old age.

        Stop believing myths. Think, for crying out loud. Look at times and dates and voting results.

      20. tiredoflibbs

        “And when Democrats adopted desegregation as an official party plank, it drove the conservatives out of the party, and the Republican party made a very diligent effort to appeal to those conservatives (see: The Southern Strategy and Lee Atwater’s comments therein), hence the party alignment we have today.”

        wow, manuresault! Weren’t you bemoaning the use of talking points the other day?

        You have regurgitated the dumbed down proggy talking points VERBATIM! What a good little mindless drone you are!

        Your handlers would be proud!

        Thanks for keeping the troll footprints on the blog. Do you really think facts matter to this guy? But you must answer because he drags the bait past you. Yip Yip Yip // Moderator

      21. tiredoflibbs

        We have manuresault’s spin of the Southern Strategy Myth,no for some facts that expose Democrat racism and exploitation.

        http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/

        President Johnson … informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them n___ers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”

        Thanks for keeping the troll footprints on the blog. Do you really think facts matter to this guy? But you must answer because he drags the bait past you. Yip Yip Yip // Moderator

      22. Cluster Post author

        I won’t go into the myth of the southern strategy as Mark and Tired did a great job in that regard but I did notice this statement from our resident progressive as it related to that myth:

        See? A deliberate courting of the racist vote.

        I wonder if our progressive considers 98%+ of the black vote going for Obama a racist vote. Or can only white people be racist?

      23. Cluster Post author

        The only thing that is sad Mersault is how blind you are politically, and how totally vested you are in a failed ideology that doesn’t even covet the social issues that you think it does. What’s even more sad is that you won’t even know what I mean by that. Have a nice day.

        Thanks for keeping the troll footprints on the blog. Do you really think facts matter to this guy? But you must answer because he drags the bait past you. Yip Yip Yip // Moderator

      24. tiredoflibbs

        Cluster, the proggies say that their position is simple history. It is more accurate to say their “history” is simple minded, just like their ideology, which appeals to the low information voter.

        We produce fact after fact and they continue to regurgitate their dumbed down talking points. You can tell they have not read a single fact that was presented, much less the questions posed to them whose answers will fly in the face of their propaganda.

      25. Amazona

        CO, I find your litany of alleged racism to be quite feeble, and much of it to be relevant more to the determination to find “racism” in every comment.

        One example is your hissy fit over the fact that there are some racial stereotypes. So what? Is associating black people with fried chicken hateful? A recent poll taken by fast food companies shows fried chicken restaurants to be favored by black people. Is it racist to associate Mexican food with (gasp!!) MEXICANS???

        Another is your fretting over the use of the word “boy”. I’ll bet you had a real conniption when you heard the title “Boys of Summer”. In our office, when I am looking for my adult white brothers, I ask where “the boys” are today. In the 2008 primary I commented to a McCain supporter (yes, I found one) “well, he’s your boy, not mine”. Quit working so hard to find insults where none exist—or, to be more precise, quit vomiting up the hysteria your demagogues keep slopping into your trough.

        Go ahead and get your knickers in a twist every time someone makes a comment or a reference that acknowledges Obama’s skin color, but keep in mind it is shallow, superficial, silly and hysterical.

        I have commented that Michelle Obama walks across a stage like she is trying to kill ants. I am sure you can find “code” in that reference which in reality addresses only the way she walks.

        The depiction of Obama as a “spook”—–?????? What does a “spook” look like” I’ve seen photos of a self-admitted spook who posts here——-was one of these grafted onto Obama’s body? (If so, our resident Spook has a defamation suit waiting to happen.)

        You need to calm down and try to understand that a reference to a public figure’s skin color or heritage is not by definition “racist”. (The grotesque Aunt Jemima portrayal of Condi Rice by a beloved Lefty cartoonist—–now THAT was racist. Still waiting to have that “denounced”.)

        Get a grip and stop looking for racism. Real racism doesn’t need someone like you parsing comments and interpreting pictures to create it.

      26. neocon01

        Kanuckunobserver

        if you want real racism listen to Je$$e, Al, barry, maxine, screwy louie, la raza the naacp, sclc, nbpp, and THOUSANDS of others……then get back to us EH?

      27. neocon01

        Only with a coalition of victims.

        That is a coalition the left has been building for decades. Back in 1970, it was not unjustified to think of certain groups as victims of the majority. In 2013, however, it’s downright poisonous.

        That poison spews from the mouth of the president of the United States. Preaching to the graduating class at Morehouse College last Sunday, President Obama told the black students that they would “have to work twice as hard as anyone else if you want to get by.” This, he said, made blacks in America very much like Hispanics, gays and women, all of whom are victims: “Many of you know what it’s like to be an outsider; to be marginalized; to feel the sting of discrimination. That’s an experience that so many other Americans share.

        Hispanic Americans know that feeling when someone asks where they come from or tells them to go back. Gay and lesbian Americans feel it when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love they share. Muslim Americans feel it when they’re stared at with suspicion because of their faith. Any woman who knows the injustice of earning less pay for doing the same work — she sure feels it.”

        The true American experience, according to Obama — the shared experience that forges a unified view of our country — is marginalization. And marginalization justifies massive government interventionism to foster e pluribus unum.

        But what happens when that marginalization ends? What happens when blacks in America are treated according to the content of their character rather than the color of their skin? What happens when Hispanics are welcomed with open arms? What happens when Americans become apathetic about the sex lives of others? What happens when women are treated with the same level of expectation and reward as men?

        The liberal agenda goes bust. Obama knows that. And that’s why he must never allow consonance to be reached. It’s why America must remain a nasty, bigoted place: The moment that America becomes the melting pot, liberalism dies. We can go about our business without fear and without need for a huge government to wipe the slate clean for us.

        http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/05/22/obama-america-racist-sexist-homophobic-n1602717/page/full

    2. Amazona

      I didn’t see CO’s comment but I do understand, from years of observation, that the default snap-to response of those on the Left is to attack what does not comply with their beliefs.

      I understand that this is why this blog has been reserved for conservative dialogue. A Lefty might come in with a rational-sounding post, as CO did in his brief dialogue with me, but we know that once that camel’s nose is under the tent and the Lefty has gained admittance to the blog, it is just a matter of time till the mask slips and the true vitriol and hatred come through.

      1. neocon01

        I understand that this is why this blog has been reserved for conservative dialogue. A Lefty might come in with a rational-sounding post, as CO did in his brief dialogue with me, but we know that once that camel’s nose is under the tent and the Lefty has gained admittance to the blog, it is just a matter of time till the mask slips and the true vitriol and hatred come through.

        meursault1942

        yup!!

    3. tiredoflibbs

      Mark the historic timeline for the so called “sountern strategy” doesn’t fit the proggies’ narrative. Their simple denials and dumb ASSertions need more documented fact than just their propaganda.

      Please meur, explain to us why Martin Luther King was a Republican?

      Thanks for keeping the troll footprints on the blog. Do you really think facts matter to this guy? But you must answer because he drags the bait past you. Yip Yip Yip // Moderator

      1. neocon01

        It is a leftist smoke screen and lie right out of alinsky’s playbook.
        We supposedly hate barry soetoro-hussein obama because of the color of his skin, but LOVE Allen West, Condaleeza Rice, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas and hundreds of others….WHY is that???

      2. tiredoflibbs

        Well neo, according to the provides, West, Rice, Thomas, Cain, etc. are not really “black people”. They give them the labels “Uncle Tom”, etc. the hate for them by the left is in at least an order of magnitude higher than what they think is our hatred for the pResident. They even go so far as saying our tolerance for Rice, West,etc, is because they are acceptable to us as “house n_____rs were.

        The left is racist all the way around.

  4. arcman46

    The sad thing about Hillary and the Democrat Party, is that they have few to no upcoming stars in their party. The power brokers are all old, and washed up.

  5. Amazona

    Senior Woman, I would like to address something you said/asked, and as my answer might spin some discussion off into a very different direction I want to post it separate from the list of direct responses. Given the antics of the Random Placement gremlins, I am not sure if this will happen, but….

    You said/asked: “So, my question is to the those who post here: If you don’t grow up in the USA, if you don’t experience the patriotism of our fathers, if you don’t see patriotic parades, if you don’t grow up in the USA and “feel” it……………………..then just what did Obama “feel” when he was growing up?”

    This goes to the heart of why the Founders were so specific when they insisted that to be a president of this country one would have to be, not just a native born citizen, but a natural born citizen. In the commonly understood usage of the language at that time, this meant someone whose citizenship was not just due to the place of birth, or to naturalization, but one whose PARENTS were citizens at the time of his birth. Or, at least, the father, because at that time citizenship was carried through the father’s line more than the mother’s.

    There has been a lot of discussion about the meaning of this phrase, when it is acknowledged at all. Even people like Hugh Hewitt and Bill O’Reilly use the two terms interchangeably, and when we go back and look at court rulings we see that even courts have often not understood that they are not one and the same.

    Without getting back into that discussion, I suggest that the reason this phrase was used was specifically because of the understanding that it is possible to be, technically, an American, but that a president should GROW UP as an American.

    Sure, there are plenty of Bill Ayers types who were born to citizen parents and who grew up hating the country and everything it stands for. But in general, at least in the time SW spoke of, being an American meant experiencing, respecting and valuing the things the country stands for, and upon which it was based.

    The Get Out Of Jail card the Left uses, when we ask what kind of president a man can be when he never even set foot on the mainland of this nation till he was out of high school, and who was brought up in other cultures and an anti-American atmosphere, has been to howl RACISM !!!!!”, as if this concern was ever based on skin color or ethnicity instead of the very real and prudent concern about what someone like this would bring to the office.

    And now we know……………..

  6. seniorwoman

    I did not see what CO had posted before it was deleted. But from the comments, I have a good idea. CO seems to think all blacks suffered from shackles and hours in the sun picking cotton at the hands of white plantation owners back in the “waxing nostalgic” days. He/she is wrong. I was raised on the farm in the northern plains. Our neighbors were a black family. We visited, played together and our parents at night played cards and there was always pie. We had other neighbors of course, one being a Syrian family. My first crush was on one of their sons…he was sooooooooooo cute. My best friend was the “black” girl. I guess I knew she was black, but we were friends and nothing else mattered. No matter the color or ethnicity we all had one thing in common…..we were poor…man we were poor. I grant you we were pretty isolated from the rest of the country. I never even knew about segregation until the later 50s when I read about it in newspapers and heard about it on the radio. Our friends were never barred from school or church or stores or cafes. There were no “white only” anything. So this segregation was so surprising. Us kids never talked about it growing up b/c we didn’t know about it and if our parents knew, they never said anything to us.

    My point is that there were many, many, black families along with many other families of other nationalities and there were no shackles, no burning crosses on yards, no picking cotton (we all picked weeds out of bean fields..that was just part of being a farmer), no whips, and no hangings. This generalization by leftists is demeaning to those of us who grew up in a kinder gentler time when families were the main stay.

    Now look at today and this country. And that is why I wax nostalgic. And that is why I wish my “black” friend was the President of the USA.

    1. neocon01

      The *****DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SOUTH***** was where blacks were segregated
      I attended grade school in the 1950’s and high school 1960 – 1964. We had blacks in grade school with us and @ 20% of my high school was black. I worked with blacks in the 1960s as well as served with them in the US Marines. Too bad the frog/kanuck doesnt know his rear end from a hole in the ground about America, democRATS and conservatives.

      1. neocon01

        President Johnson … informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them n___ers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”

        OOH the IRONY!!!!!!

        Bill Clinton made insensitive ‘race jab’ about Obama in 2008

        Only days before he will nominate Barack Obama for re-election, in 2008, former President Bill Clinton said of him: “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”

        Clinton made the racially insensitive remark to Sen. Ted Kennedy as he tried to convince the liberal lion drunk to endorse his wife, Hillary, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, according to The New Yorker.

Comments are closed.